jan i wrote:
On Saturday, March 7, 2015, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
If you mean the over-use of private@ by the PMC, is there an issue to
discuss? Those of us on the PMC need to be attentive to minimizing private@
Well look at the numbers, I did not publish the numbers for 2014, but you
will see a high number of mails on private@ so it seems that not all agree
to keep private@ low.
The sample is skewed due to some recent long conversations that we were
explicitly asked to hold on private@ by a third party that was involved
in these conversations. If you take them out, numbers are much more normal.
That said, yes, at times discussions on private@ should be moved to
dev@; very often they are, as soon as someone points it out; the
solution is simply to patrol private@ for conversations that mistakenly
start there, ask if it has to be private, and move to dev@ otherwise.
Exactly, the 2 examples you mention are good examples of something that
should have been public....but did it happen not really, look at the number
of mails on the 2 issues that alone tell a story.
If a conversation starts on private@ because an ASF officer sends a
message there as he is unaware that an articulated discussion about the
subject is ongoing at dev@ there's little we can do unless we really
enforce moderation of all traffic to private@ (overkill; I prefer that,
like now, we move conversations when suitable; just with a more active
monitoring).
All that considered, remember that private@ is readable to 400+ people,
many of which work for companies that may have different interests than
OpenOffice has; so private@ is not really the small secretive group of
friends that people like to believe it is (and the PMC is not secretive
or a group of friends either, for that matter!)
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
